SCOTUS Decision strikes down portion of McCain-Feingold

[knuckle_head]

I think it means politicians will care even less for the average person and even more for the folks that line their pockets.

This.

It pisses me off.

[King Kashue]

You should go spend some time reading up on Honduras, Prince Peanuts.

A stale reference to a discussion from months ago, completely and totally unrelated to either the topic of this thread or to my comment, and a discussion in which you maintained a position despite multiple people pointing out issues with your claim (and thus something that belies the very point you're trying to make, i.e., that you do indeed seek serious discussion).



Man, every time I think you can't exceed yourself in re-inforcing the caricature you've chosen to become, you surprise me.

[HackedByChinese!]

The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court

[ThudMaker]

How about you post the remainder of that quote?

Probably because quoting too much of it is violates intellectual copyrights. At least there's a famous mod on this forum who inspires for us not to do it.

[ThudMaker]

A stale reference to a discussion from months ago, completely and totally unrelated to either the topic of this thread or to my comment, and a discussion in which you maintained a position despite multiple people pointing out issues with your claim (and thus something that belies the very point you're trying to make, i.e., that you do indeed seek serious discussion).

Interesting that my reference is stale, yet you keep reminding people no only on HCBF, but also that other place.

 

In a few days the newly elected President takes office, Zelaya and the current Prez, Micheletti, will receive amnesty and at best for you the General and a few other military buddies in charge of flying Zelaya out of the country will receive a slap on the wrist. Sounds like a lot of unconstitutionalisms going on down there.

[King Kashue]

Interesting that my reference is stale, yet you keep reminding people no only on HCBF, but also that other place.

I haven't brought up Honduras since that discussion.

The only times I've even mentioned it has been when you have (and you've mentioned it more than once).

[DaveAronow]

I still dont see what this has to do with my scrotum?

[ThudMaker]

I haven't brought up Honduras since that discussion. The only times I've even mentioned it has been when you have (and you've mentioned it more than once).

[rpsands]

REMEMBER HONDURAS

[ThudMaker]

REMEMBER HONDURAS

Why are you yelling?

[zachoff]

Why are you yelling?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE QUEERS ARE DOING TO THE SOIL??

[YOUTUBE]5Xuvcpjf1JU[/YOUTUBE]

[ThudMaker]

MAYBE SCORSESE COULD FILM IT!

 

AQKS4_Y7QCI

[King Kashue]

Unless you think every time I've said "I no longer take you seriously" is somehow a specific reference to Honduras, I can't imagine what you think is...


In any case, this conversation is coming dangerously close to me treating you like you have any intention other than wasting time, so I'm done...

[Docta Jones]

Probably because quoting too much of it is violates intellectual copyrights. At least there's a famous mod on this forum who inspires for us not to do it.

I would like to point out however that this "famous mod" you are mentioning stated (as I recall to the best of my ability) "*paraphrased* you can post a link, and a portion, just don't copy past the entire/vast majority of the information in the link". What was done with reference to your quote is similar to a journalist using elipsis to snip out the remainder of a sentence to add weight to the idea of the statement that they want. Your quote's reduction happened to occur at the end of the sentence, but not the end of an idea. This kind of editorialization is how people on all sides of politics, religion, and other highly passionate organizations attempt to skew fact in their direction. I like to think of it as disinformation by fact, or a lie of omission. It's one reason I dislike michael moore. Sure he presents facts, but only the ones that support his ideas. People like moore (imo) are a detriment to the image of the united states. Once people are able to see past their own one sided agendas and take part in real dialog and want real change, understanding that it can't all be their way, then perhaps we will be able to move toward being a society that does some good. But hey, we've been in end times since 1844, the clock's still ticking down, just a matter of when the alarm goes off.

[ThudMaker]

Unless you think every time I've said "I no longer take you seriously" is somehow a specific reference to Honduras, I can't imagine what you think is... In any case, this conversation is coming dangerously close to me treating you like you have any intention other than wasting time, so I'm done...

okay

[ThudMaker]

I would like to point out however that this "famous mod" you are mentioning stated (as I recall to the best of my ability) "*paraphrased* you can post a link, and a portion, just don't copy past the entire/vast majority of the information in the link". What was done with reference to your quote is similar to a journalist using elipsis to snip out the remainder of a sentence to add weight to the idea of the statement that they want. Your quote's reduction happened to occur at the end of the sentence, but not the end of an idea. This kind of editorialization is how people on all sides of politics, religion, and other highly passionate organizations attempt to skew fact in their direction. I like to think of it as disinformation by fact, or a lie of omission. It's one reason I dislike michael moore. Sure he presents facts, but only the ones that support his ideas. People like moore (imo) are a detriment to the image of the united states. Once people are able to see past their own one sided agendas and take part in real dialog and want real change, understanding that it can't all be their way, then perhaps we will be able to move toward being a society that does some good. But hey, we've been in end times since 1844, the clock's still ticking down, just a matter of when the alarm goes off.

Interesting angle of attack since you cherry picked one sentence in more than several posts in this thread, including the OP.

[Docta Jones]

Except my comment wasn't directed at the topical content, it was directed at a method of editorialization that was used and pointed out. The rebuttal to that, while technically and factually accurate, is one that can be used to argue either side of the omission. :poke:

[82Daion]

Probably because quoting too much of it is violates intellectual copyrights. At least there's a famous mod on this forum who inspires for us not to do it.

Or it dilutes the point you're trying to make, but that's only a minor inconvenience, eh? :poke:

I'm with zachoff on this one. While it doesn't allow candidates to accept direct contributions from corporations, it still gives corporations the ability to disproportionately influence political campaigns, which is unsettling.

[Mrs. Thrustin]

I'm actually doing my law review article on this decision, so it's been interesting to see what people have to say.

 

Some things to consider:

 

1. The overwhelming majority of corporations in the US are very small, with only one or a few shareholders.

2. This decision only strikes down the ban on corporate expenditures that are made independently of a candidate. A corporation can not contribute a dime directly to a candidate, nor can it coordinate with a candidate about an expenditure.

3. The only sufficient reason for limiting political speech is the prevention of corruption or the appearance thereof. The Court ruled long ago that independent expenditures did not contain risks of corruption.

4. The NRA and the ACLU were both on the side of Citizens United urging the Court to rule as it did today. I figure it must be a damn good argument for these two groups to agree.

[zachoff]

So businesses can basically give whatever amount of money to the party of choice and then the party gets to divvy it up?

[HackedByChinese!]

So businesses can basically give whatever amount of money to the party of choice and then the party gets to divvy it up?

 

My understanding is that the business can spend money independently of a candidate's political campaign to endorse the candidate, so long as they acknowledge that the video/ad/whatever was sponsored by them. The limits on corporate donations directly to campaigns are still in place. I could be wrong, though.

[ThudMaker]

I'm actually doing my law review article on this decision, so it's been interesting to see what people have to say. Some things to consider: 1. The overwhelming majority of corporations in the US are very small, with only one or a few shareholders. 2. This decision only strikes down the ban on corporate expenditures that are made independently of a candidate. A corporation can not contribute a dime directly to a candidate, nor can it coordinate with a candidate about an expenditure. 3. The only sufficient reason for limiting political speech is the prevention of corruption or the appearance thereof. The Court ruled long ago that independent expenditures did not contain risks of corruption. 4. The NRA and the ACLU were both on the side of Citizens United urging the Court to rule as it did today. I figure it must be a damn good argument for these two groups to agree.

Great information. Thanks for the post.

[ThudMaker]

Or it dilutes the point you're trying to make, but that's only a minor inconvenience, eh? :poke:

The only minor inconvenience is your postings aren't very good rebuttals. It's kind of a tough read.

[Mrs. Thrustin]

My understanding is that the business can spend money independently of a candidate's political campaign to endorse the candidate, so long as they acknowledge that the video/ad/whatever was sponsored by them. I could be wrong, though.

In a nutshell, yes. Corporations can finance advertisements and such on their own relating to a candidate for office. They are still required to comply with disclosure laws that require detailed filings with the FEC and identifications on advertisements.

[zachoff]

My understanding is that the business can spend money independently of a candidate's political campaign to endorse the candidate, so long as they acknowledge that the video/ad/whatever was sponsored by them. The limits on corporate donations directly to campaigns is still in place. I could be wrong, though.

Oh, I gotcha now... I misread it. That's not terrible, I guess. It'd be funny to see an ad on HBO that says "Boy, so and so is a real piece of {censored}..."

Can't wait to see all of the Focus on the Family campaign ads in 2012.